December 13, 2018 SCSEP Service Delivery Model and Performance I Take Care of the Customers

Michi McNeace TwoTech, Inc. Older Workers Unit

The Charter Oak Group, LLC Bennett Pudlin The Charter Oak Group, LLC Older Workers Unit

Knowledge Check 1 What percentage of unsubsidized placements were… (provide answer to all 3 questions) with host agencies? made by the participants without any direct service to employer by SCSEP? self-employment? 5

ANSWERS Percentage of unsubsidized placements that were with host agencies: Answer: 31% Percentage of placements made by the participant without any substantial services to the employer by the program: Answer: 79% Percentage of placements that were self- employment: Answer: 4%

What is the Service Delivery Model (SDM) SCSEP is unique in the fields of employment and training and services for older adults Only employment and training exclusively for older adults Focuses on the hardest to serve with the least connection to the labor market Individualized service plans (IEP) based on regular assessments Employs universal subsidized community service as primary means to remove barriers to employment and impart essential soft skills Provides supportive services and an array of additional paid training to give participants a leg up

SCSEP Core Measures Balanced array of measures recognizes SCSEP’s dual goals Three measures of service to participants Service level Community service Most-in-need Customer Satisfaction/Effectiveness Three employment outcome measures Q2 Employment Median Earnings Q4 Employment

How Program Elements Relate to Performance Measures The measures required by Congress support the two main goals of the program and relate to critical program elements Simplified flow chart on next slide identifies major program activity clusters and the performance measures that relate to them The measures are also related to each other; increased performance on one measure will enhance performance on another measure

SL, MiN MiN E2E, CSS CS, E2E, CSS SL, CS E2E, E4E, ME, CSS E2E, E4E, ME, CSS E2E, E4E, ME, CSS

Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) The QPR is designed to report performance on each of the performance measures in Sections E. The QPR also contains critically important information in the other sections: Section B shows customer flow and placement activity Section C reports on community service performed Section D presents participant demographics and characteristics If you know how to read the QPR, it is an effective tool for both forecasting and diagnosing performance (not part of today’s presentation) The next slides show you which QPR elements are related to which measures.

CS, SL SL, MIN SL, MIN SL, MIN CS, SL CS, SL, MIN Q2E, CSS Q2E, ME CSS Q2E, Q4E, ME ME Q2E ME Q2E CS, CSS SL CS, CSS CS SL = Service Level (E1) CS = Community Service (E2) MIN = Most-in-Need (E3) Q2E = Q2 Employment (E4) Q4E = Q4 Employment (E5) ME = Median Earnings (E6) CSS = Customer Satisfaction (E7)

MIN priority of service MIN waiver factor

The Core of the SDM Community Service Assignment CSA is designed to remove barriers to employment and develop soft skills Critical components: Assessment, re-assessment, and IEPs Appropriate host agency job and rotation Collaborative process: participant’s interests and needs; having a say in assignment and training received at CSA Fit with host agency: capacity to meet participant’s needs; understanding of host agency’s business needs; some choice in the assignment; sufficient information about participants assigned What to do when there is no appropriate CSA

A Top Down View Understanding the Participant Pool Why this matters: Track changing demographics Refining service delivery model Understanding that participants with different characteristics can have very different needs Providing the same training and services to all participants may lead to poor outcomes for some Recruitment priorities and strategies Marketing to CBOs, host agencies, and employers Targeting your resources

Using InfoSPACE to Analyze Participant Pool by Characteristics Participants by Dimension shows participants by one of 40 dimensions (same as Section D of QPR) Also shows participants by gender, age, education, or race crossed with one other dimension Available at all levels: nationwide, all national grantees, all state grantees, grantee, sub-grantee, state, region, national grantees by state

Knowledge Check 2 Answer the three questions below: Percentage of host agencies that have asked to remove a participant? Percentage of host agencies reporting no increase in the amount of services they provide to the community as result of participating in SCSEP? Percentage of host agencies that would have liked participants to come with more basic computer knowledge?

ANSWERS Percentage of host agencies that have asked the program to remove a participant Answer: 41% Percentage of host agencies reporting no increase in the amount of services they provide to the community as result of participating in SCSEP Percentage of host agencies that would have liked participants to come with more basic computer knowledge: Answer: 30%

Tools for Assessing the Assignment Process Two assessments every 12 months; should lead to job rotation and new assignment if necessary, as well as additional services Participant survey: Q4 (expectations: why enrolled in SCSEP), Q6 (our understanding their employment interests and needs), Q10 (receiving training needed for the assignment), Q11 (having a say in the skills to be gained), Q12 (receiving appropriate computer training), Q7 (getting needed supportive services)

Tools for Assessing the Assignment Process Host agency survey: Q5 (our understanding of their business needs); Q6 (getting sufficient information); Q11 (our staying in touch); Q7 (having some choice in the assignment); Q9 (participants’ preparation for CSA); Q8 (having a good match); Q12 (participants’ need for supportive services); Q13/Q14 (removal from CSA) Two management reports on host agencies provide number of active and inactive host agencies, host agency tenure in SCSEP, average length of assignment, and average number of assignments by host agency

Participant Profiles Profiles identify the clusters of characteristics that make up a significant portion of the participant pool They can also be used to show which clusters of characteristics are associated with better and worse employment outcomes Planned for a future release of InfoSPACE

Discussion What tools have you found most useful for analyzing your participate pool and understanding their needs? What additional tools would you like? What tools have you found most useful for analyzing your host agency pool and understanding their needs?

Good Outcomes for All Self-Sufficiency Is Not Always a Job Unsubsidized employment is a major goal of SCSEP Regulations assume that all participants want and can achieve employment; first IEP must reflect this Regulations also recognize that employment is not feasible for everyone (in PY 2017, only about 37% of exited participants had a placement); subsequent IEPs must reflect other forms of self- sufficiency if placement is not feasible, e.g., income supports, social engagement, volunteering

Top Down and Bottom Up Triaging the Participant Pool Use both the profiles and dimensional analyses to get a comprehensive view of the participant pool and your knowledge of individual participants through their assessments and IEPs Triaging the participant pool will enable you to identify three groups of participants: Those most motivated and prepared for employment; these will need the least additional preparation from you and should be the easiest to place Those interested in employment but needing significant support to become job-ready and secure a job Those for whom employment is probably not feasible and for whom other forms of self-sufficiency should be explored

Knowledge Check 3A Answer the four questions below in the chat: On a scale of 1-10, what score did participants give the program for providing them needed help to prepare for the workforce? On a scale of 1-10, what score did participants give the program for helping them find a job? What percentage of participants said that the computer training they received was appropriate for their needs? What percentage of participants said that the program did not help them obtain needed social services? 3030

ANSWERS Score for preparing participants for the workforce Answer: 7.9 out of 10 Score for helping participants find a job Answer: 7.2 out of 19; lowest score in survey Percentage that said computer training was appropriate for their needs Answer: 65% Percentage that said the program did not help them obtain needed supportive services Answer: 25%

Knowledge Check 3B What percentage of employers would like participants to be better prepared in each of these areas: Computer Knowledge Knowledge of what the job requires How to behave with co-workers and customers Basic employability skills

ANSWERS Computer Knowledge Answer: 25% Knowledge of what the job requires Answer: 19% How to behave with co-workers and customers Answer: 18% Basic employability skills Answer: 17%

Preparing Participants for Employment CSA is the primary vehicle for removing barriers to employment, developing soft skills, and providing work experience through initial host agency job and job rotation Additional paid training should supplement and complement that provided by the CSA; it is provided by the standard grant funds (Other Participant Costs) and ATSS 10% funding Because dollars are limited, additional paid training should be used where it makes a difference Participant is willing and able to take full advantage Training will contribute to a placement at a better job

Tools for Assessing the Placement Process Participant survey: Q20 (preparation for employment by sector); Q18 (preparation for success in the workforce; Q12 (appropriate computer training); Q19 (help in finding employment) Employer Survey: Q4 (understanding of business need); Q7 (program stayed in touch); Q5 (participants had necessary skills to start the job); Q6 (participants’ need for better preparation); Q11 (attractiveness of SCSEP); Q8 (participants’ need for supportive services)

Tools for Assessing the Placement Process New surveys are being developed for all employer placements and for host agencies that hire participants after the CSA Two management reports on employers provide number of active and inactive employers, employers’ tenure with SCSEP, average number of participants by employer, and employment outcome achieved by placement. The details also show OJEs and job codes

Knowledge Check 4A For each question below, indicate which group achieved the higher rate of entered employment in PY 2016 (please answer in the chat) Hispanics, non-Hispanics, or neither Homeless, not homeless, or neither LEP, not LEP, or neither Low literacy skills, not low literacy skills, or neither 3939

4 A - ANSWERS Hispanics, non-Hispanics, or neither Homeless, not homeless, or neither LEP, not LEP, or neither Low literacy skills, not low literacy skills, or neither

Knowledge Check 4B Hispanics, non-Hispanics, or neither For each question below, indicate which group achieved higher average earnings (please answer in the chat) Hispanics, non-Hispanics, or neither Homeless, not homeless, or neither LEP, not LEP, or neither Low literacy skills, not low literacy skills, or neither 4141

4B - ANSWERS Hispanics, non-Hispanics, or neither Homeless, not homeless, or neither LEP, not LEP, or neither Low literacy skills, not low literacy skills, or neither

Using InfoSPACE to Analyze Employment Outcomes by Characteristics Dimensional Analysis shows the differing rates of employment outcomes by all participants with the same one or two characteristics in as Participants by Dimension

Participant Profiles You can use InfoSPACE to approximate the effects of multiple characteristics by looking for participants who have two or more of the individual barriers to employment that negatively affect entered employment; you can also do your own cross-tabs with gender, age, education, and race for the three outcome measures Participant profiles can be used to show which clusters of characteristics make up a significant portion of the participant pool and which clusters are associated with better or worse employment outcomes

Some Preliminary Profile Findings About Employment Outcomes Age has persistent effects on entered employment; with few exceptions, it is a straight line decrease. This effect persists even when other powerful characteristics, like public assistance and education, are added High school degree seems to have a powerful effect (strong argument for adult ed and GEDs), but age still trumps education. Across all educational levels, the youngest age band enters employment 30 points more than the oldest age band For most characteristics, rurality reduces likelihood of entered employment; e.g., rural participants on public assistance do far worse than urban participants on public assistance. Disability is a surprising exception to the effect of rurality: Disability has almost no negative effect on rural participants; for urban participants, however, entered employment is 9 points lower for those with a disability than without disability. Rural veterans also do somewhat better than urban veterans, although both still lag non-covered persons Increasing education from less than HS to high school deceases the effect of rurality from 9 points to 6.5 points; an associate’s degree entirely removes the effect (but this degree does not always yield higher entered employment

What Else We Know About Placements Substantial service: 21.4% of all placements were due to a substantial service provided to the employer by the grantee Question about SCSEP staff helping participants find employment received the lowest score in the participant survey Placements with host agencies: 31.3% of all placements in PY 2017 were with host agencies Self-employment: 4.4% of all placements were for self-employment

Discussion What tools have you found most useful for analyzing your employer pool and understanding their needs? What additional tools would you like? What tools have you found most useful for understanding the employment needs of your participants?

Bennett Pudlin Charter Oak Group, LLC bpudlin@charteroakgroup.com